comment #1

T. S. Idiot says ...

"She does not care what you think, she will have what she wants, she will not do the feints, pivots and backoffs that presidents must. She is neither nimble nor agile, and she knows best. She will wear a great nation down." This isn't true of Peggy's pal W?

comment #2

christian says ...

And Noonan thinks Reagan saved the world. I await the round of Limbaugh quotes.

And funny that Hitch would tell that to Hewitt, one of the most servile Bush supporters and worshippers of false power out there. Irony dies hard.

comment #3

CinemaPhreek says ...

"The very qualities that impress us are the qualities that will make her a painful president. She does not care what you think, she will have what she wants"

That's pretty rich coming from a conservative Republican like Noonan. Are we to infer that she is talking about Bush the Son as well?

There's something very slimy about you using slams from people across the aisle to take down Clinton.

comment #4

T. S. Idiot says ...

"There's something very slimy about you using slams from people across the aisle to take down Clinton." Absolutely true.

comment #5

Nate Ford says ...

jesus, jeff please give the "political reporting" a break. i come to this site to get away from this bullshit, not to have a movie critic scratch his opinion on the already sullied landscape. i get it, you like obama, you don't like hillary. then just vote like the rest of us and be done with it. thank you and i look forward to your next review.

comment #6

Krazy Eyes says ...

Up until a couple of weeks ago I wasn't 100% invested in who the Dem nominee turned out to be but Clinton's constant flogging of allowing the FL and MI votes to be counted (even though her main competitor wasn't even allowed to campaign there or even be on the ballot in one of the states) has made me change my mind.

This just screams of sour grapes and dirty politics. Any respect I once had for her is gone.

comment #7

Dave says ...

If you've read Peggy Noonan regularly outside of Jeff's quotes, you'd know that like many on the Right, she soured long ago on the presidency of George W. Bush.

Of course, disappointment and disagreement is possible without believing that he was THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!, or that he was incapable of accomplishing good things. That's kinda/sorta what we do over here on the Right-- we fight and argue, but at the end of the day, we tend not to launch into self-destructive, "Who is holier?!?" battles for ideological purity.

comment #8

Jay T. says ...

I agree, ENOUGH political postings... one here or there is fine, but over the past few months I'm willing to bet that at least half of the posts on this site were about politics. Especially when the quotes you select are so skewed and you're such an Obama fan you're completely blind to some things happening, such as Hillary Clinton getting the Gore 2000 treatment from the press while Obama gets handled with kid gloves. And I'm saying this as someone who voted for Obama, but I don't allow that simple fact to make me blind to what's actually happening.

comment #9

Jay T. says ...

People who turned on Bush "long" ago have no credibility in my mind, because his administration and its actions (not specifics, but the general theme) were completely predictable before it ever started.

comment #10

Dave says ...

Oh, and to the comments that Jeff is wrong for quoting someone on the other side of the aisle. . . again, what is THAT about?

I must've missed the memo that said that all wisdom and "The Truth" is reserved solely for Democrats and Blue State residents. Or Republicans, for that matter.

We're a lazy bunch, we silly HE talkbackers. We insult, we needle, we use arguments from authority rather than appeals to reason, and we talk in circles around each other. I do it as much as the rest of us, although I will say that I try not to.

If Christian makes a valid point about politics, I'll accept it, even use it, even though we almost certainly won't pull the same lever in November. Hell, I'd even agree with *D.Z.* if he made a valid point about politics, which is statistically possible ;-).

Anyway, the constant impugning of motives and credibility simply because the people you disagree with 90% of the time are frustratingly yet indisputably and objectively correct 10% of the time does not mean you are ideologically obligated to ignore their wisdom during that 10% of the time. No one is checking our Blue State/Red State member cards here, we're all just having a conversation, a pleasant diversion from talking about, you know, *movies*.

That said. . . everything I wrote above is equally an admonishment to Jeff, who *does* cherry pick the arguments in support of his thesis. I just fear that Jeff's going to forget how he saw eye-to-eye with his ideological opposites when it was convenient for his arguments once/if they begin making arguments that contradict his worldview.

Basically, will Jeff still cite Peggy Noonan if she constructively criticizes Obama? Sadly, I think we all know the answer.

comment #11

Dave says ...

"People who turned on Bush "long" ago have no credibility in my mind, because his administration and its actions (not specifics, but the general theme) were completely predictable before it ever started."

A rational approach to invalidating the opinions of those who support George W. Bush, and those who no longer support George W. Bush.

Since with that rationalization you've already eliminated the credibility of anything said by half the country, Jay T., I look forward to how you plan to rationalize away the rest of the country until the only person left with any credibility at all is. . . you :-).

comment #12

btwnproductions says ...

I suspect our host is the Manchurian Pundit, turning us into Clinton supporters by carrying on in exactly the opposite manner. I've never liked Clinton, but she's beginning to get my sympathy (and, more importantly, a serious reconsideration of her abilities)--and I'm beginning to feel that Obama is overly coddled by an increasingly fawning and sycophantic base and lacks the fighting spirit needed to win.

comment #13

CinemaPhreek says ...

To chime in with the rest, this is exactly why columns work best when the columnist isn't also the editor.

There is no one to effectively play Devil's advocate with Wells, to take him aside and point out that the site's raison d'etre is being forgotten in mad rush to let everyone know just what he thinks about the latest political shift in the wind. I get the feeling we are being bombarded with this because he's own circle of friends don't want to hear it anymore.

Worse, by his own admission it seems he has trouble concentrating on non-primary things like film. Isn't that the mark of a professional? Doing your job when there's no one to force you?

I think there's a reason so many items that showed up a day or two earlier at Movie City News are popping up. It's an admission that Wells can't tear himself away.

Dude, every time you link to an article at Huffington Post and readers go to check it out they are reminded that if you really want political discourse YOU DON'T GO TO A FILM SITE.

comment #14

Walter Sobchak says ...

...at least you never stoop to hyperbole, christian....

("it's one or the other! Decide! You either believe that Bush is not only the worst world leader in history EVER and his evil knows no limits OR you're a Bush-lover and he's your number one boy and best pal and you think he's never done anything wrong...which is it!?)

And don't worry about Jeffrey's recent flirtations with Noonan. Soon the candidates will be in place and he can go back to hating her for being a right-wing hack.

comment #15

AbeGoldfarb says ...

Oy vey...Obama didn't say it, a staffer did, a reporter abused "off the record" privileges, and that's about it. Meanwhile, an actual spokesperson for Clinton's campaign describes Obama as Ken Starr. Stay classy, San Diego.

comment #16

Jay T. says ...

"Since with that rationalization you've already eliminated the credibility of anything said by half the country, Jay T., I look forward to how you plan to rationalize away the rest of the country until the only person left with any credibility at all is. . . you :-)."

I meant to say was that people who abandoned Bush long ago have no more credibility in my mind than those who still support him. As opposed to implying they have no credibility whatsoever. My point is, Bush pretty much delivered what I expected (and a lot of other people), so I hardly see why his actions should have surprised anyone (I'm referring in particular to the 2004 election).

comment #17

Sam Adams says ...

It drives me bats how condescending and disrespectful Hillary's supporters are, as if sexism were the only reason to dislike her. I don't see Obama's supporters accusing people who don't support him of being racist. By overtly mocking Obama's rhetoric, Clinton essentially implied that his supporters are morons who can't tell the difference between airy talk and concrete plans, which is not exactly the way to win them over should she win the nomination. It's "vote for me, or get stuffed." If there wasn't ample reason to despise her three months ago, there is now.

The idea that using arguments from across the aisle is "slimy" is, frankly, inane. Just because they're Republican doesn't mean their wrong. The normally intolerable David Brooks has been making a disorienting amount of sense of late, particularly w/r/t Obama (and that includes some of his criticisms as well). If you want slimy, try Hillary's suggestion that John McCain would make a better president then Barack Obama. Way to promote party unity, you selfish megalomaniac.

comment #18

Jay T. says ...

"It drives me bats how condescending and disrespectful Hillary's supporters are, as if sexism were the only reason to dislike her. I don't see Obama's supporters accusing people who don't support him of being racist"

Hi, you must be new around here, because if you read several dozens of Jeff's posts about Obama, he does exactly that.

comment #19

T. S. Idiot says ...

"And don't worry about Jeffrey's recent flirtations with Noonan. Soon the candidates will be in place and he can go back to hating her for being a right-wing hack." Unless what he really wants is a cuddle.

comment #20

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

The very piece cited in this post closes with a film quote, and it goes unmentioned. From now on, when I'm looking for a daily fix of insight into the current state of cinema, I'll head to The Huffington Post.

comment #21

CinemaPhreek says ...

Sam - you really don't understand the mindset of the right, do you?

Many of that ilk have made no bones about their willingness to be intellectually dishonest in service to their movement. It's why they are so quick to assume bias on everyone's part, because they cannot separate their own.

comment #22

christian says ...

Former Bush and Iraq War cheerleader Andrew Sullivan officially jumps his shark:

Samantha Power is right. The Clintons are monstrous. Samantha has quit because she told the truth.

comment #23

Lipstik Music says ...

This is an important political moment and politics has bleeded into every blogger I read including those on technology, movies, and music. I see that as a good thing or, at the least, reflecting my own mindset which is, perhaps, a bit too preoccupied with the political race these days. So I support Jeff's interest in airing his thoughts. A blog is explicitly NOT a magazine with an editor (exempting the mega-corporate blogs run by Nick Denton, Mike Arrington, etc.). It is supposed to be, or at least created to support the idea of, one persons' thoughts, ramblings, musings, etc. with all the inconsistencies that that brings. I doubt Jeff's page views have gone down when he posts on politics but I imagine that, if he cares at all, that metric would be what drives him to post on his core topic.

Lastly, someone else mentioned Brooks and Noonan favorably and I'd have to agree. I can listen to David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer on the right and Josh Marshall, Kos, etc. on the left. It depends on the substance of what they're saying at the time. I hear from people on the left all the time that there's no way Brooks or Noonan could ever be right. But Peggy has a way of cutting right to the heart of the matter. And because someone was wrong about something in the past (supporting W) doesn't mean they're wrong now. Open your minds, bros.

comment #24

Jay T. says ...

"And because someone was wrong about something in the past (supporting W) doesn't mean they're wrong now."

No, but it means they're views should definitely be taken with one monster grain of salt.

comment #25

Jay T. says ...

"And because someone was wrong about something in the past (supporting W) doesn't mean they're wrong now."

No, but it means their views should definitely be taken with one monster grain of salt.

comment #26

christian says ...

Kos is a proto-libertarian and former Republican who once wrote a letter complaining about homosexuals in the army. He's a creepy sociopath with nary a progressive bone in his body unless by progressive you mean raking cash off the gullible left.

comment #27

Walter Sobchak says ...

Who's going to 2001 at the Egyptian tonight?

I'll be there, all hot and good-looking and cool.

comment #28

Jay T. says ...

Man, 2001 is so overrated...

Just kidding - let's not go there again.

comment #29

christian says ...

2001 -- have to wait until Saturday or Sunday.

I already caught Walter trying to pilfer my 1968 sugar cube dipped in Owsley that an old hippy gave me way back.

comment #30

nemo says ...

People on the right had plenty of information about Bush that told them loud and clear he would be a disaster even before they gave him the keys to the car and let him go out and wrap it around a tree.

They chose to ignore that information. That they chose to hate Bush *after* he totaled the vehicle at least shows they're not completely delusional. But it doesn't do much for their credibility going into the future.

They sure don't have strong grounds to patronize people who saw through Bush and hated him before hating Bush was cool. He was a known quantity when he was still governor of Texas, before he ran in his first primary.

comment #31

christian says ...

I for one warned everybody in 1998 when I was living in Texas that Hurricane Bush was on his way. Few listened.

comment #32

le corbeau says ...

Hey, look who's a libertarian Republican now:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120485275086518279.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

comment #33

le corbeau says ...

Oh, and Eleanor Clift is floating the Gore scenario in Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119851

comment #34

dangovich says ...

That's kinda/sorta what we do over here on the Right-- we fight and argue, but at the end of the day, we tend not to launch into self-destructive, "Who is holier?!?" battles for ideological purity.

Hee hee. Good one, Dave. I like a person with a dry sense of humor.

comment #35

D.Z. says ...

nemo: To be fair, I hated Bush more than most people, and even I didn't think he'd fuck up this badly.

comment #36

christian says ...

We do not torture. But Bush does:

“The bill would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror, the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives,” deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.

comment #37

Arizona Joe says ...

A Peggy Noonan endorsement is worth two vomits.

comment #38

George Prager says ...

Ell, Mgmax, McGovern was the "Amnesty, Acid, and Abortion" candidate. What's more libertarian than that? I love that guy.